Has all Science become Science Fiction? Part 2

Continuing with how Science has become Science Fiction to further a political cause and how they use education and programs like Common Cause to indoctrinate children.

Hong & Zhao’s report is not criticizing the propagandizing of scientific information. In fact their report supports their view that the ends justify the means. Manipulating data to fit the view of global climate change is okay since it is for a good cause.

They state in their report that “media bias emerges as the unique perfect Bayesian equilibrium” because “the media has incentives to accentuate or even exaggerate climate damage. It belongs to the approach of positive economics and is value neutral”.

This begs the question, if the scientific data is fact why do “scientists” need to “accentuate or even exaggerate” the information?

Remember what you may call an exaggeration others will call a LIE.

So why do scientists and the media have to LIE?

According to Hong & Zhao, “The main difficulty of the climate problem is that it is a global public problem and we lack an international government to regulate it”. They go on to explain that media bias and manipulation of data can be used to “alleviate the under-participation problem to some extent.” In other words, if you can’t get people riled up with the truth then lie.

Theyquote another “scientist,” Dessi, who had the theory of cultural transmission and collective memory which shows that media and scientific bias can be beneficial to provide credibility and thus provide action.

What is “cultural transmission and collective memory?” It refers to how a younger generation’s decisions depend on beliefs about norms and values. This is why Hong & Zhao argue that propaganda is good – that by using bias in areas such as media, science, and education, you can steer the younger generation to have the fundamental belief that you want them to have. The theory is that they will remember emotions, negative and positive, associated with the issue and not the facts.

We see this in modern education. John Dewey is recognized as the Father of modern education. In Colleges of Education his theories are taught to all student teachers. The teacher’s union, National Association of Education gave him high recognition for his works. Pedagogy, the study of how to teach, is based on Dewey’s views.

But did you know that one of Dewey’s fundamental beliefs was that “the ends justifies the means only when the means used are such as actually bring about the desired and desirable end.”

So according to Dewey the ends are justified if you get the results you want. So if Hitler had exterminated all the Jews, his means would have been justified, according to Dewey, because his means would have actually brought about the desired and desirable end.

While Hong & Zhao are providing a rationalization for lying or as they put it “information manipulation,” in order to further the cause, I thought “science” was about facts not about what makes my belief look good.

The author’s boldly note in the abstract of the study that the “news media and some pro-environmental have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change. This article provides a rationale for this tendency.”

Why do they do this? Because it “will eventually enhance global welfare” or in other words it is okay to do evil for the cause of good – you know like the Spanish Inquisition.

“This is not the first time that global warming advocates have been accused of being deceptive.

The late Stanford University professor Stephen Schneider wrote in 1989: “So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” which we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.” Discovery Magazine (October, 1989, p. 45-48).”

“Former NASA global warming scientist James Hansen conceded in a 2003 issue of Natural Science that the use of “extreme scenarios” to dramatize global warming “may have been appropriate at one time” to drive the public’s attention to the issue.”

For many “global warming” or “global climate change” has become a religion – a false religion that could probably have tenants such as these:

“Thou shall repent of your carbon sins and believe in the one true climate model”

“Thou shall pay your carbon tithes to the great profit, Al Gore”

“Thou shall convert all nations and people to believe in the carbon religion”

“A great flood, fire, and pestilence shall come across the lands of non-believers”